HOW TO POST A COMMENT AND FIND PREVIOUS BLOGS

HOW TO POST A COMMENT AND FIND MY PREVIOUS POSTS - Your thoughts and comments are important. To post a comment on any or all of my posts, simply click the title of the blog entry, go to the bottom of the blog and post your comments in the "comment" box. Be sure to click "post comment" to save. My previous posts are on the right side. Scroll down to find them. I look forward to hearing from you. But if you don't have time to comment, please continue reading my posts. Stay Informed.



Tuesday, May 28, 2013

GENDER BENDER DAY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

CROSS-DRESSING DAY FOR KIDS.  
WHERE? 
MILWAUKEE, WI PUBLIC SCHOOLS
and
SAN FRANCISCO, CA PUBLIC SCHOOLS


WHEN STUDENTS ARE SUSPENDED FOR WEARING AN NRA T-SHIRT,
WHEN STUDENTS ARE SUSPENDED FOR WEARING A GOD BLESS AMERICA T-SHIRT,
WHEN KITS ARE SUSPENDED FOR WEARING AN AMERICAN FLAG T-SHIRT,
(CAN'T OFFEND HISPANICS, THE ANTI-GUN FOOLS, OR ILLEGAL LAW BREAKERS,
WE MUST BE POLITICALLY CORRECT)
BUT KIDS ARE TOLD IT'S OKAY TO CROSS-DRESS?  
NOT ONLY OKAY, BUT ENCOURAGED AND A DAY IS DESIGNATED TO DO IT?

I SAY IT'S TIME TO HOME SCHOOL THE KIDDIES TO PROTECT THEM FROM THINGS LIKE
GENDER BENDER DAY, GAY DAY, AND CROSS-DRESSING DAY.  
AND KISS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM GOOD BYE.  


WND HAS THE FULL STORY HERE  Read it and you will find out which pedophile Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Honor.  

READ THE BILL!!

RAND PAUL GAVE A SPEECH ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE ON
JUNE 29, 2012 CHASTISING THE DEM. HARRY REID LED SENATE FOR
NOT READING THE BILLS BEFORE PASSING THEM.

HOORAY TO RAND PAUL FOR TELLING IT LIKE IT IS.

THE U.S. SENATE IS LED BY THE DEMOCRATS WHO BELIEVE
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO READ THE BILL
BEFORE VOTING ON IT.  

THEY ALSO BELIEVE YOU CAN RUN THE LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD
WITHOUT A BUDGET, FOOLS THAT THEY ARE.

NO WONDER THE U.S. SENATE IS REVILED BY SO MANY AMERICANS



Monday, May 27, 2013

REMEMBERING MEMORIAL DAY, WHAT IT MEANS TO BE FREE


Sen. Robert A. Taft, Republican, believed in America, limited government, and the power of the people.  He would have been standing with us against Obamacare, IRS tyranny, a lying government bureaucracy, unconstitutional wars, and the takeover of the Republican Party by moderates who work hand-in-hand with liberal Democrats to implement Obama's socialist agenda.

On May 30, 1945 -- as World War II was coming to an end -- at a Memorial Day Ceremony at Gettysburg National Cemetery, Sen. Taft gave the following speech.  All Conservative Republicans need to read it.  Liberal Democrats could learn something from it, but they probably wouldn't change their minds about their quest for control.  The warnings he gave in this speech are the same warnings against tyranny in America that we must pay attention to today.  It is long.  I have highlighted sections that I believe are the most relevant in case you don't have time to read all of it.  But it will be worth your while to read every word.  
Speech Delivered by Sen. Robert A. Taft at Memorial Day Ceremony, Gettysburg National Cemetery, May 30, 1945  

Fellow citizens of the United States of America, I am greatly honored to be invited to come here today to the Gettysburg National Cemetery and express, inadequately I know, the obligation which we feel to those who fell on the greatest battlefield of the Civil War, and the reverence which their service to us still inspires 82 years later. I know that I cannot express that obligation and that reverence as effectively as it has been many times expressed before upon this occasion. I can only relate the sacrifices of our soldiers to the more immediate problems which we face today.

The soldiers of 1863 gave their lives to preserve the Union and make permanent the Government which had proved to the world that a Nation, founded for the purpose of securing freedom, and governed by its own people, could survive through a great war without being destroyed from within by the very forces of freedom developed in a free country. Many other American boys have fought since then to preserve our people and their freedom. Our hearts are full today with our gratitude and devotion to those who are fighting now and who have fought in this war, those who have given and those who have risked their lives that our Nation may be preserved and may preserve its freedom.

In these wars with Germany and Japan, we are now approaching the great sacrifices of the Civil War-we have suffered a million casualties among our boys in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. About 300,000 have been killed, or missing and probably killed. That means that there are 300,000 families who mourn a beloved son, 300,000 wives and mothers to whom this war has brought tragedy and grief. Too many newspapers and too many individuals have come to accept the military attitude that American boys are only pawns in the game, that we can properly sacrifice so many impersonal lives for this goal. But every life is a boy with a father and mother, or a wife or sweetheart. We should never forget the awful catastrophe that war is, that it means the destruction of all the hopes and purposes which have formed the ideals of hundreds of thousands of American individuals and families. Let us remember today that very few purposes can justify the sacrifices which we are calling upon our boys to make. Let us remind ourselves that neither foreign conquest, nor hate, nor revenge, can justify such a loss, that the only purpose of this war that can justify its continuance is to insure the future peace and freedom of the American people. Let us not gloat because we burn or destroy the city of an enemy, and remember that such destruction can only be justified as a means of bringing this war to a quicker end. The moment that we can achieve a peace which will guarantee the prevention of future aggression on the part of Japan, it is our duty to all those whom we honor here today to see that peace is brought about, whether by arms or by negotiation.

But we have a further duty to the men who are suffering in this war when peace has been brought about. There can be little doubt now that the defeat of our enemies will prevent attacks upon this country from without for many years to come. We are all agreed that that result may be strengthened and assured by the creation of an international organization to preserve peace. We hope that such an organization can insure peace, not only in the immediate future, but for generations to come. The San Francisco Conference, under the most severe handicaps of political and economic differences will at least establish an international forum constantly working to prevent the recurrence of war.

But we must constantly remind ourselves that the only purpose of this war, the only purpose of the battle fought here at Gettysburg in 1863, the only purpose of any war in which this country has been engaged is to maintain here at home the freedom which was won in 1776, the freedom to work out here the destiny of the American Republic. American foreign policy and international organizations are only a means to that end. And so we should be equally concerned here today that we retain in Washington the policies necessary to assure that freedom. It is useless to destroy totalitarianism in Germany and Japan and then establish it in the United States.

There is real danger of just that result for the whole thought of the world has moved steadily toward the totalitarian philosophy, toward the subjection of the individual to the state instead of a government by the people. Government controls such as peacetime military conscription which would have been indignantly rejected in the nineteenth century, are given serious consideration, even in this country-Totalitarian thought has spread over the world. When Mussolini established a dictatorship in Italy, many of our citizens thought that a little benevolent despotism was a good thing for the Italian people. Hitler brought it to Germany, the military caste brought it to Japan, largely because so many people lost faith in the efficacy of democratic government. We see it also on our side, in the great Russian Soviet, in Chiang Kai-shek's China, in Brazil, in Argentina and to many other Latin-American countries. It has made progress because so many people have been persuaded that it is perhaps desirable to surrender individual freedom and let someone dictate their lives better than they themselves can arrange them. In this country many people who would indignantly deny any soft feeling for State control are advocates of measures which lead inevitably in that direction because they are dissatisfied with the necessary slow progress involved in a government where all the people are given a voice.

I believe that freedom can only be preserved if we retain government by the people all the time. I heard a United States Senator argue that we could have freedom and democracy even though Congress delegated all its powers to the President during the war and adjourned, because, he said, we could meet again and take those powers away. There are two fallacies in that view. While that form of government lasts, there is no freedom and it is not government by the people. Secondly, if it lasts too long, the powers granted by the people are never returned to them. That has been the history of popular government from the days of Greece and Rome through the Middle Ages to Germany and Japan today.

The best protection of freedom is to maintain continuous rule by the people. It cannot be done without constant vigilance against the turning over of power to governments and to men who are in effect beyond the reach of the people. The very size of the Republic today leads to a delegation of power. The machinery by which 135,000,000 people govern themselves is necessarily so complicated that it is hard to devise a system in which the real voice of the people is heard. Hundreds of bureaus have been created, and even here in Washington we don't know how many bureaus there are or what it is that they are doing. Each one is a little kingdom in itself. When the ordinary man comes to Washington, he has a hard enough time to find out which is the bureau which is bossing him, and an even harder time to get consideration for his views. More than a hundred Government corporations have been created, even less accountable to Congress than the bureaus. Washington is a vast rabbit warren of bureaucrats, all issuing regulations having the force and effect of law and building up a control to which the people gradually come to conform their lives.

The war has required a suspension of many freedoms, and the people have become so used to regulations that they almost forget what freedom is. The danger of totalitarian government is that the people do get used to it, as to a narcotic. The time has come to remember that many of these restrictions on freedom were only created to preserve freedom and should be abandoned when freedom is assured. The size of the Republic, the complexity of modern problems in the economic field, all lead the people to the easy course of turning over the problems to someone else, to some expert, perhaps, to solve the whole business. Instead of thinking out problems for themselves, inhabitants of a totalitarian world would accept the advice of supposedly expert columnists or radio commentators, who are also too busy to think out their problems, and who accept what is handed to them by the Government. A people unconcerned with their own liberty want every problem to be handled by a czar. They are impatient with Congress if Congress takes time to argue a case on its merits. A frame of mind in dealing with public questions which moves on waves of emotion, engulfing editors, writers, and broadcasters alike, and demands solutions today for every complex problem, is a frame of mind leading to totalitarian government.

While we talk constantly of democracy and free enterprise, I see too many of the very people who use that language advocating measures which deny it. Too many businessmen believe in controls of the NRA code variety, quotas, cartels, division of production, the fixing of minimum coal prices, and other measures to protect business from excessive competition. Labor unions, which ought to be the very core of democracy, are ruled by perpetual leaders almost without the formality of reelection.

At this very moment demands are being made that Congress give up its power to fix tariffs and to provide for the reorganization of the Government departments, on the ground that democratic processes are too slow and ineffective. Arbitrary power must be granted to carry through the currently popular theories.

Every bill proposes that Congress delegate its power to make law to some board, and the Supreme Court itself is dominated by the thought that the people themselves and their representatives are incompetent even to prescribe standards, but must give power to make law to administrative agencies. Nearly every bill introduced proposes increased Federal power, and the reduction of the power of States and local governments where the people's voice can be heard. In education, in health, and in unemployment compensation, Federal bureaus seek wide and arbitrary power to affect the lives of millions of individuals.

People who think themselves sincere believers in democratic government want everything desirable at once, and the more attractive the goal, the less they care about the method. If this frame of mind were carried to its logical conclusion, it would lead to the turning over of all power to a benevolent dictator to carry out the good things which he promises and which he presents in a sufficiently attractive package.

Of course, this general attitude makes the ground fertile for Government propaganda. A desirable end such as peace or extended foreign trade is linked with certain particular methods and panaceas proposed and highly recommended by the Government, or accompanied by a demand for broad power to solve the problem without further interference from Congress. Anyone who is opposed to this particular panacea is at once labeled as opposed to peace or foreign trade, and probably pictured as a reactionary, a Fascist, or even a Republican. All the arguments for the favored remedy are blared over the radio and broadcast in pamphlets, and no argument is admitted against it. The first Dumbarton Oaks proposal was pictured as so letter perfect, that I am still getting attacks on Senator Vandenberg's amendments by people who don't know that the State Department has accepted them. Bretton Woods and the revised reciprocal trade treaties are pictured as the only cures for all foreign-trade difficulties. The question is not the desirability of these various delegations of people's power, it is the frame of mind which seems to be willing to abandon that power without question, It is the frame of mind which avoids the discussion of the merits of a problem and accepts the voice of the state as the voice of God.

Nothing is so dangerous to democracy as a vast machine of propaganda, for it strikes at the very root of democratic government. Government by the people can only endure if it is founded on intelligent decision based on accurate knowledge.

(THE NEXT SECTION OF TAFT'S SPEECH ADDRESSES HIS OPPOSITION TO THE MILITARY DRAFT, WHICH BEGAN AFTER WW II.  IT'S A VERY INTERESTING, HISTORICAL EXPLANATION OF HOW THE DRAFT BEGAN)

This afternoon I wish to speak particularly about one step now proposed, supported by Government propaganda, which seems to me to strike at the very basis of freedom, for which our boys are fighting. It is the proposal that we establish at once compulsory conscription for military training in time of peace. The proposal is that we establish in this country a continuous 12 months' military training for every boy, the same military set-up which we have gone to war to abolish in Germany and Japan. Whether we become a militaristic and totalitarian country depends more on this measure than any other. It does not relate to any limited class or group. It reaches every family and every boy. It subjects them completely to the domination of the Government for a year during their most formative period. It keeps them under constant supervision as reserves for years thereafter. The power to take a boy from his home and subject him to complete Government discipline is the most serious limitation on freedom that can be imagined. Many who have accepted the idea favor a similar Government-controlled training for all girls.

There is no doubt that the Government, and particularly the War and Navy Departments, are straining every nerve to secure the enactment of this legislation before the war ends. Secret meetings are being held in the Pentagon Building and elsewhere. On April 26 the chief executive officers of some 40 or more women's organizations were invited there, and it is said they were addressed by the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, the Under Secretary of State, General Marshall, Admiral King, and other high-ranking officers. The ladies were requested not to disclose the substance of the speeches made or identify the War Department or its officials with the sponsorship of the plan. One newspaper stated that the ministers of various churches were invited to a similar meeting and attended, and that Negro organizations have been approached. Invitations went out from a citizens committee in New York to hear Secretary Forrestal, Under Secretary Grew, and General Weible at an off-the-record luncheon on May 25. Government propaganda is bad enough when it is open, but it is inexcusable when secret. We may expect a flood of open propaganda after the ground has been prepared, and everyone who is opposed to the plan will be pictured as for war and for unpreparedness.

We have fought this war to preserve our institutions, not to change them. We have fought it to permit us to work out our problems here at home on a peaceful foundation, not on a foundation dominated by military preparations for another war. The question of the best form of military organization should not be an emotional problem. It should be dealt with by argument and not by propaganda. But the methods being used threaten the freedom of this country, for if they are successful they can be used to fasten upon us every kind of regulation, price control for business, wage control for labor, production control for farmers.

If we approach this problem logically and not emotionally, the first question should be how large an Army we need to insure our freedom. Why not discuss what the right size is so that we can determine the best method of providing it? How can we tell how large an Army we do need until the peace is made and the organization of the world effected? It seems to me impossible to pass intelligently on the need for conscription at this time. Must we not see first what kind of a world is established at San Francisco and at the peace table?

There are approximately 1,250,000 American boys in every age group. Is it necessary to train them all for a full year at a cost of at least two and a half billion dollars a year? This would provide reserves of about twelve and a half million men between the ages of 18 to 27. Is any such reserve necessary? Certainly, it is not needed in a hurry, for the armies we now have will be the best possible reserve for the next 3 or 4 years. The Selective Service Act expressly provides that all drafted men at the end of the war shall be transferred to the reserve and remain there for 10 years. Apparently, the argument for doing this job now is that the people might not be willing to do it later. That is certainly a typical totalitarian argument. It is an attempt to base a great permanent national policy on war emotion, because the proponents are afraid of government by the people when they have time to think it over.

It seems improbable to me that the training of a million and a quarter boys a year would ever be necessary. The vast reserve provided could only be needed for a great overseas expedition like that in which we are now engaged. For such an expedition, it would take several years to organize ships, planes, and munitions, just as it did in this war. We would surely have to have new modern equipment in many fields, and it would take longer to build it than it would to train the men, as we found in this war. It would seem that for sudden attack, or for attack from the air or from attack by rockets the great mass of millions of reserves would be of little value. I should think we rather need an expert Army with the most modern weapons. In the event of a sudden attack, our main reliance would have to be a Regular Army of highly trained and technically trained men, and during such an attack they would not be much aided by 10,000,000 reserves. The argument that we can save in the size of a professional army by having many millions of reserves bears all the earmarks of a propaganda argument instead of one based on common sense.

Having determined that we need an Army of a certain size, with certain reserves, we could then decide whether we could get it by voluntary means in the American tradition. Suppose we need a million men in the armed forces. We expect to have at least 50,000,000 people working at civilian jobs in this country. Surely we can make the Army sufficiently attractive as an occupation for 2 percent of these to be willing to volunteer. With good pay, reasonable treatment for men and their families, and provision for retraining and retirement when a man is too old to stay in the Army, I don't see why Army life cannot be made just as attractive as working daily on a machine, mining coal, or engaging in hundreds of other occupations. Many jobs in the Army should give highly technical training with interesting knowledge which makes the trainees capable of advancement in other activities in life.

To provide the necessary Reserves, it could be made worth the while of many boys to take the necessary training. Many alternative plans have been suggested to a year's conscription. For instance, adequate reserves might be provided by training 200,000 boys in each age group. It should be possible to obtain volunteers in that number for a 3-month course and basic training during one summer, courses in school and a later 3-month summer course in the field. The boys could be paid a sum which would assist them in their regular education during the winter. Additional courses could be provided for those who wish to become Reserve officers. What I have suggested is only one idea and there may be many others. The Army will immediately criticize any plan, because they are determined to have conscription. They want the boys for 12 months consecutively because they want to change their habits of thought, to make them soldiers, if you please, for the rest of their lives. Nothing less will do. We are indeed bankrupt of ideas if we cannot provide a method by which necessary military forces and Reserves are provided by an American voluntary system.

The other arguments for conscription seem to me almost too trivial to discuss. It is said it will teach the boys discipline and that they need it. My own opinion is that we need more initiative and original thinking and less discipline rather than more. Our present Army is not the most disciplined Army in the world, but there isn't any better Army for the simple reason that the boys do some thinking for themselves.

It is said the Army will improve their health, and that they need it because so many failed to pass the strict health requirements of the Army. As a matter of fact, the great bulk of defects were those relating to teeth, eyes, mental, nerves, and heart conditions, all of which had arisen long before the age of conscription. There is nothing to show that the Army would conscript any of these boys. To improve their health, we must reach them at a much younger age.

The argument that it would improve the morals of our boys has almost been dropped because of its foolishness. If there is one place where morals will not be improved, it is in the vicinity of Army camps.

It is true that there are some boys who are benefited by Army control, but to improve a few, let us not change the whole character of the American life which I believe has been the cause of success in this war.

It is said that we are going to teach the boys citizenship in the camps. This argument makes clear a real danger in the whole system. By handing boys over for 12 months to the arbitrary and complete domination of the Government, we put it in the power of the Government to indoctrinate them with the political doctrines then popular with the Government. It has all the dangers of Federal education and none of its advantages. Attempts along this line have been made with the present Army, and a large amount of propaganda sent out to be taught to the soldiers. In wartime it is bad enough; in peacetime, it would be intolerable.

Some have supported this project on the ground that the training is only to be part military and a considerable amount of it is to be character training along other lines. We have already a complete school system in this country. If it isn't adequate and does not give education in citizenship, we can well spend our time and money in trying to improve that system. As a matter of fact, it is already the finest system of education the world has ever seen.

Military conscription is essentially totalitarian. It has been established for the most part in totalitarian countries and their dictators led by Napoleon and Bismark. It has heretofore been established by aggressor countries. It is said it would insure peace by emphasizing the tremendous military potential of this country. Surely we have emphasized that enough in this war. No one can doubt it. On the contrary, if we establish conscription every other nation in the world will feel obliged to do the same. It would set up militarism on a high pedestal throughout the world as the goal of all the world. Militarism has always led to war and not peace. Conscription was no insurance of victory in France, in Germany, or in Italy. The countries with military conscription found that it was only an incident and not the determining factor in defense or in victory.

Military training by conscription means the complete regimentation of the individual at his most formative period for a period of 12 months. If we admit that in peacetime we can deprive a man of all liberty and voice and freedom of action, if we can take him from his family and his home, then we can do the same with labor, we can order the farmer to produce and we can take over any business. If we can draft men, it is difficult to find an argument against drafting capital. Those who enthusiastically orate of returning to free enterprise and at the same time advocate peacetime conscription are blind to the implications of this policy. They are utterly inconsistent in their position. Because of its psychological effect on every citizen, because it is the most extreme form of compulsion, military conscription will be more the test of our whole philosophy than any other policy. Some say it is unconstitutional. It makes very little difference whether it actually violates the terms of the Constitution. It is against the fundamental policy of America and the American Nation. If adopted, it will color our whole future. We shall have fought to abolish totalitarianism in the world, only to set it up in the United States.

Government by the people can only exist if the people are individuals who think. It can only exist if the individual is free to rule the state and if he is not ruled by the state. We must be constantly vigilant to keep alive the thinking of freemen, and there is no such threat to that thinking as the course which would impose on the Nation compulsory military training. We have no greater obligation to the men who fought at Gettysburg, we have no greater obligation to the men who fought in Europe and who are fighting in the Pacific, than to preserve here in America a state in which the individual shall be free to think and be master of his own soul, and where the people shall be free to govern their own Government.
Folks, Sen. Taft got it right: "We have no greater obligation to the men who fought... than to preserve here in America a state in which the individual shall be free to think and be master of his own soul, and where the people shall be free to govern their own Government."

May we remember Taft's words on this Memorial Day and every day to come.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

TOP REPUBLICAN CASHING CHECKS TO HELP DESTROY GUN RIGHTS

REPUBLICAN WANTS TO CONFISCATE OUR FIREARMS
HE WAS A TOP ADVISER TO 
JOHN MCCAIN AND MITT ROMNEY

NO WONDER THE REPUBLICANS LOST - TWICE

PAKISTAN TO U.S. - TAKE YOUR "KILL LIST" AND SHOVE IT!!

WE CAN'T KILL OUR WAY TO VICTORY IN 
THE WAR THAT CANNOT BE NAMED


CAPTURING IS BETTER THAN KILLING,
IT'S CALLED "INTERROGATION" TO GAIN INFO, STUPID


MUSLIM TERRORIST BLOWS HERSELF UP

MUSLIM TERRORIST BLOWS HERSELF UP

The United States is next.  The Boston Bombers showed us how it will be done.  It's called Soft Terrorism." Why do we continue to allow immigration from Middle Eastern countries where we are routinely reviled and hated?  Ask Congress.  

AND THE BEAT GOES ON, IRS TARGETING CONTINUES RIGHT NOW

IRS TARGETING OF TEA PARTY AND CONSERVATIVES CONTINUES

SHHHH, HOLDER'S DOJ BEGS JUDGE TO KEEP FOX NEWS IN THE DARK ABOUT EMAIL/PHONE MONITORING

DOJ BEGS JUDGE TO BE QUIET, 
AND OBAMA APPOINTS HOLDER TO INVESTIGATE HOLDER

Well, well, well, AJ Eric Holder has more problems.  He signed the search warrant accessing James Rosen's (Fox News Reporter) emails and phone records.  This, after he firmly declared under oath that he was not involved in any way, and in fact, knew nothing about it. Is this Perjury?  And guess who Obama has appointed to investigate the Department of Justice's activities in this matter?  Eric Holder.  I can hardly wait for the results of Eric's "investigation."

And it now appears that Holder's DOJ begged the judge who signed the search warrant accessing Rosen's emails and phone records to "keep it quiet, shhhhhh, don't tell a soul, it's just between us buddies, mums the word."  The judge is lucky he hasn't ended up at the bottom of the Potomac with his feet encased in a cement boot.  But I suppose that could still happen.  My advice to the "judge?" Hire a bodyguard - soon.


READ ABOUT IT HERE

2010 - OBAMA ADMINISTRATION VOWED TO "PUNISH" ENEMIES, AND SO IT CAME TO PASS

In 2010 Obama made this statement to roaring crowds. "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends."  Valerie Jarrett, longtime senior Obama advisor, Queen of the White House, said it like this.  “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us, and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay.”  Ah, Obama and Valerie, you looked into your crystal balls and told us what the IRS and your other henchmen had in store for us, the lowly, uninformed, unprepared, helpless-against-you American public.  You are such a predictor of the future.

Still think Obama and his stooges didn't know what the IRS, EPA, OSHA, ATF, FBI and a host of other Obama departments were doing when they "targeted" Tea Party, Conservative and Religious groups?   Pull your head out of the sand.  They TOLD US what the intended to do, in their own words.  I predict that Obama's "punish our enemies and reward our friends" approach to governing will be the sad, pathetic legacy of the Obama presidency.  He will go down in history as the first "Black" president.  Rah, Rah.  But he will also go down in history as the "Worst Most Divisive" president ever.

HERE'S THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER

OBAMA LEFT AMBASSADOR AND 3 OTHERS TO DIE IN BENGHAZI

AMBASSADOR STEVENS AND OUR DEAD NAVY SEALS COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IN BENGHAZI

Remember Benghazi?  It's where Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans lost their lives because Obama, Leon Panetta  Hillary Clinton  and the State Department refused to send help to save them.  I know the IRS scandal is pushing Benghazi from the headlines, but four Americans were killed there.  Don't forget that.  Obama and his inept administration, including Hillary, must be held accountable for these deaths.  Panetta says America responded quickly to the attack.  Sure, under Obama's order America responded that America would NOT respond.  Instead, CIF troops ready to go were ordered to stand down.  Now Obama won't say who gave the order.  Here are two links if you want to know the REAL truth about what happened in Benghazi.  Don't Forget The Fallen Americans Who Died Because of Obama's Lack of Action

AMERICAN THINKER HAS THE TRUE STORY

NEVER HEAR OF CIF FORCES?  THEY EXIST!  MORE ABOUT THEM HERE

Friday, May 24, 2013

IRS OFFICIAL SIGNED LETTERS THAT TARGETED TEA PARTY

IRS OFFICIAL, LERNER, SIGNED TEA PARTY TARGET LETTERS.  Lerner refused to testify before Congress citing her 5th Amendment rights.  What about the rights of the Americans she went after like a pit bull?  She's on administrative leave, still earning her very large salary and full benefit package.  No guts Obama should fire her on the spot.

FOX NEWS HAS THE STORY

Thursday, May 23, 2013

IRS AUDIT FROM HELL

I found this and thought you'd like to read it.  This is just one example of what the IRS did to Conservatives and Tea Party participants. Talk about stealing an election, the actions of the IRS and Justice Department stifled thousands of potential voters who may have decided to stay home rather than cross a governmental agency.  It's called FEAR of your government.   

The IRS Audit From Hell
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 21, 2013

From prominent election lawyer Cleta Mitchell comes the disgusting detail with which the Internal Revenue Service hounded conservative groups -- they demanded so much information it constituted a deliberately crippling workload.

Mitchell noted that prior to 2010, the scrutiny of (c)(3) and (c)(4) applications was brief and non-intrusive. She reprinted a typical questionnaire to one of her clients in 2009, asking for little more than an update on its articles of incorporation. Mitchell says that before 2010, applications for (c)(3)s took 3-12 months, and for (c)(4)s, usually only 3-6 months.

Then, in 2010, it all changed.

To show how impossible compliance with the document requests was -- and is -- for would-be (c)(4)s and (c)(3)s, she submitted actual questionnaires sent to her clients during 2011 and 2012 as they sought tax exempt status, for comparison.

The IRS asked one client seeking a (c)(4) designation 124 separate questions. This client first applied in September 2010, and its application is still pending. Just some of the information the IRS requests includes the client's planned activities for the coming year, and the nature and extent of its lobbying and staff time, and copies of brochures, pamphlets, newsletters, fliers, advertisements and any literature it's issued; whether it will conduct rallies for or against any public legislation or candidates, including the time and location of each rally, a copy of each handout involved, the names of people in the organization involved and their compensation for and time spent on the rallies, as well as the percent of the organization's time will be spent on the events and the total expense; whether it will offer classes, workshops or lectures, and if so, the topics, including a sample of materials used, and information on how fees will be determined, how many staff will be allocated, and whether honoraria will be paid.

The list continues: The IRS wants to know who selects materials for the client's website, on what criteria, whether it is free, whether it is copyrighted, who controls the data, whether the site sells ads or products online, its annual gross receipts, all in detail; whether the client has worked with any other groups, with relevant details on costs, staffing, and percent of time involved; whether any candidates have addressed the client, including who, when, with what materials, and asks for video or audio recordings if available; it asks the group conducts voter registration or get out the vote drives, including the time and location of events, on whose behalf, the percent of time, staff and funds will the client will spend on it, along with any printed materials.

And that's not all -- it further inquires as to whether the client would use an officer's personal residence for its business, and the cost of doing so, along with all leases, contracts, rentals, loans and financing agreements; it wants to know how it solicits funds, with copies of all solicitations and brochures, and its fundraising costs, including the percent of staff and budget used on fundraising; for this client it asks for financial statements from 2007-2011, with a breakdown of all income and spending, information about its employees such as title, duties and pay, along with the resumes of all directors and officers; it wants to know any and all involvement in litigation, in great detail.

And Mitchell would bid us bear in mind as we read the questions that a (c)(4) can spend 100 percent of its time lobbying. Advocacy is totally permissible for all exempt organizations. A (c)(4) can spend money on partisan campaign intervention, as long as it is less than half of its work. So, why the intrusive questions?

Reading over the questionnaire, one is reminded of Southern literacy tests designed to keep blacks from registering by demanding an inordinate level of detail and specific answers.

This IRS questionnaire, and the hundreds like it sent to conservative groups, had no purpose other than to stop their political activity and force them to spend their time filling out endless forms. Talk about a chilling effect on free speech!

OBAMA'S WATERLOO

THE NEWS OF THE DAY.  READ IT HERE FIRST.  I posted  about this earlier this week.  Here's the rest of the story.

President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.
“For me, it’s about collaboration.” — National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley on the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House
 Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?
Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?
The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.
March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:
Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30
In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”
The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:
April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.
In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.

THE REST OF THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR STORY IS HERE.  
BE SURE TO READ IT ALL.



IRS SUPERVISOR PLACED ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE - SHOULD BE FIRED!

Lois Lerner, who was running the Tax Exempt division of the IRS during the Tea
Party/Conservative targeting scandal, has been placed on administrative leave.  Well, whoop-de-do.  Now she can sit in her house and collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages and benefits while Obama continues to lie about what he knew and when he knew it, and Congress continues to ferret out the all illusive facts.  Hard to get to the truth when Obama minions dodge answering questions and make a mockery of the situation.  The reality?  The buck stops at Obama's desk.  He's quick to take credit for anything good that happens; let him be responsible for the crap too.

FOX NEWS, LERNER PLACED ON LEAVE

THE HILL.COM

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

MUSLIM BEHEADING IN ENGLAND, LATEST UPDATE

Brits are angry as hell over the beheading of a young British soldier by Muslim Terrorists.  Here's a video of their reaction to this horror.

THROW THEM ALL OUT OF THE COUNTRY!

IRS TARGETS CONSERVATIVE GROUPS, VERY IMPORTANT VIDEO

IF YOU CARE ABOUT AMERICA YOU WILL WATCH THIS VIDEO IN ITS ENTIRETY.  IF YOU DON'T SPEAK UP NOW, WHEN THE IRS, FBI, OSHA, ATF OR SOME OTHER ROGUE GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMES FOR YOU, THERE WILL BE NO ONE LEFT TO DEFEND YOU.


MUSLIMS KIDNAP WHITE GIRLS FOR SEX GANGS - IN AMERICA

MUSLIM PAEDOPHILE SEX GANGS, OPERATING HERE IN AMERICA

They kidnap white girls, enslave them with drugs, threats and beatings, and pimp them out multiple times a day.  And we continue to allow these savages to come here through the front door - and refuse to close the southern border to keep them out.  Does Obama care?  No, if these girls get pregnant, well, they can just have an abortion on demand.

READ ABOUT IT HERE

LERNER HAS HISTORY OF TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS.

One of the most shocking things about the current IRS scandal is the revelation that the agency asked one religious pro-life group to detail the content of their prayers and asked clearly inappropriate questions about private religious activity. But under Lerner's watch, inappropriate religious inquiries were a hallmark of the FEC's interrogation of the Christian Coalition.  When Lerner was the head of the Federal Election Commission she sued the Christian Coalition.  She demanded all of their donor lists and information on the finances of all donors.  She cost the CC hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and countless hours of lost work time.  No wonder she's pleading the Fifth Amendment.  She's another Democrat bureaucrat drunk with power.   




LERNER HAS A HISTORY OF TARGETING CONSERVATIVE GROUPS

FOUR AMERICANS KILLED BY OBAMA'S DRONES, "BUT WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

OBAMA HAS KILLED MORE US CITIZENS 
THAN FOREIGNERS WATER BOARDED UNDER BUSH 


Four Americans have been killed by Obama Drones since 2009.  One was an intentional target, three were collateral damage.  All were in violation of the U.S. Constitution.  Americans are entitled to due process under the law.  These four Americans were murdered by their American president, no trial, no jury, no judge.

The Democrats were ferociously against Bush's water boarding activities.  They ranted, raved, harangued, screeched, squealed and squawked incessantly every time they opened their sizable mouths on Bush's water boarding policy.  But now they are astonishingly silent, stone cold mute, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, when Their Guy kills Americans using His hit list and His drones.  They are pure partisan hacks, Little Bo Peep’s Sheep, while their Nobel Peace Prize Prez continues his murderous drone rampage, believing Americans are expendable, no problem.

How long before some low level Drone operator sitting in an office in Cincinnati, or Washington, or Seattle, decides they are sick and tired of the Tea Party, or Conservatives, or Religious Zealots, and send out the Drones – by mistake, of course.  

HERE'S THE STORY - BUT "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

HILLARY WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT? LYING, UNETHICAL OBAMA CLONE


I found this article and thought you'd all like to read it.  It is SO VERY IMPORTANT to know this if you are considering supporting Hillary for President in 2016.  She's been a liar for decades.  Many of her over-the-year's-lies are cited in this article. That's why it was so easy for her to lie about Benghazi.  Putting Hillary in the White House will give us another four years of crooked, lying, thieving politics.  She and Obama are cloned low-lifes.  Read this whole article.  And then campaign, campaign, campaign AGAINST Hillary Rodham Clinton for President in 2016.  The article is fairly long.  But I encourage you to read it ALL.  It's a real eye opener and will give you ammunition when Hillary supporters swarm like biting gnats.

Politics: Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff: Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Published by: Dan Calabrese on Wednesday January 23rd, 2013

Dan Calabrese
By DAN CALABRESE - Bet you didn't know this. 
I've decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton's performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary's conduct at the time.

I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn't reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary's arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I've combined the two pieces. If you're interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it's worth your time to read it.

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)

To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.
“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.
Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.

“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”

That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.

But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.


After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.
Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.
(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)
This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.
According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.
The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:
Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.
Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential "abuse of power" as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.
As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.
Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.
In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:
Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .
In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.
Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.
“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.
Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.
But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.
All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.
“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”
Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.
“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”
Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.
A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.
Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.
By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.
“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”
Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days.
Vote wisely.

IRS KNOCKING AT YOUR DOOR, SAL RUSSO, THE FULL STORY

Sal Russo from the Tea Party Express wrote an op-ed that was picked up and published in the U.S.A. Today.  It is so powerful I wanted to share it with you.

SAL RUSSO, TEA PARTY EXPRESS, THE REAL STORY